ArticleInternational ophthalmology2026
Comparative analysis of 70 SMILE and 70 toric ICL eyes for myopic oblique astigmatism: a matched cohort study from an initial pool of 11,929 eyes.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcomes and Astigmatism Vector Analysis of High Toricity Visian ICL.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare visual, refractive, and vector-based astigmatic outcomes between Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) and toric Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) implantation in patients with myopic oblique astigmatism.
methodsIn this retrospective, matched cohort study, 140 eyes (70 SMILE, 70 toric ICL) with oblique astigmatism were treated at a single center. Groups were matched preoperatively for refractive cylinder and spherical equivalent within ± 0.50 D. Postoperative outcomes at six weeks were assessed, including uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, CDVA), spherical equivalent (SEQ), astigmatism correction using vector analysis (Alpins method), and safety and efficacy indices. A post hoc power analysis was performed for the astigmatic correction index.
resultsThe efficacy index was 0.97 ± 0.17 in the ICL group and 0.94 ± 0.15 in the SMILE group. The safety index was 1.02 ± 0.11 (ICL) versus 1.01 ± 0.09 (SMILE). UDVA equal to or better than preoperative CDVA was achieved in 83% of ICL eyes and 79% of SMILE eyes. SEQ within ± 0.50 D was observed in 85.7% (ICL) versus 81.4% (SMILE). The astigmatic correction index was 0.97 for ICL and 1.04 for SMILE. Linear regression showed stronger correlation between target and achieved astigmatism in the ICL group (slope = 1.04, R
conclusionsBoth SMILE and toric ICL are effective and safe for correcting myopic oblique astigmatism. However, toric ICL demonstrated slightly greater precision in axis alignment and refractive predictability, supporting its use in cases of high oblique astigmatism where rotational accuracy is critical.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.